Kathy Schroerlucke's comments on draft proposal

[Pittsburgh Institutional Network Discussion<pgh-inet@network-democracy.org>]

This is a document submitted to us by Kathy Schroerlucke 
<kathys@andrew.cmu.edu>, who has given us the go-ahead to distribute 
it.

If there are any references which are unclear, please don't hesitate 
to ask, either publicly or privately.


  -----------------------------------

Pittsburgh I-Net Working Group Proposal - Review by Kathy
Schroerlucke, 4/21,1999.

It is clear, succinct and for the most part understandable.  It
provides background and sets up the proposal well.  I found a few
points confusing, less clear and have a few suggestions for you
to consider.

Substantive:

--------------------

1.  Under "Why Community Groups use....", item #2, Community
communications....

Community Groups as Consumers of Web Content

I think you are wrong about the major use of the Internet by
Community Groups as communications and I think you are making the
wrong case here.

Community groups are not using the Internet for communications.
Not until more individuals have Internet access at home will this
be actually true, especially for the reasons you mention (e.g.
organizing, communicating with constituents and community
residents.)  Even many of the activists groups in Pittsburgh
don't use e-mail because the individuals working don't have it at
home.   It is true that email is used by organizational staff as
well as individuals but e-mail is not the main application, nor
does it drive the need for high speed connectivity.   In fact,
for org'l staff e-mail puts them in touch with folk outside the
Pittsburgh area which ends up being crucial to their ability to
find resources, get needed information, suggestions, etc.

Actually, the major use of the Internet by community groups is
access to the web, the world of resources, information and
connecting with others and other organizations outside their own
geographical area.  This continues to be the lifeline for many
organizations who use the web for to find needed content.  It's
like having a University of possibilities for program content and
development and professional development at your fingertips.
Distance learning is becoming a greater use of the Internet as
well.

Access to the web is essential for a community group's
sustainability and viability as consumers as well as producers.
A recent group of senior citizens found little on the web of use
to them (which is hard to believe but true) and so instead of
turning away from the technology they became producers of content
and learned how to create web content.

For community groups who are working to sustain technical
environments, provide learning cultures and activities and
wanting to access the world of financial resources access to the
web is essential.

As producers, community groups are increasingly exploring the
Internet for fundraising, e-commerce and exploiting the world of
grants and federal funds available.  Funding agencies are
altering their strategies to fund groups who collaborate,
especially groups who are collaborating by using technologies.
They are also giving priority to groups who are finding
innovative uses of technology to connect their constituents, be
they youth, adults or senior adults, to activities, resources and
the world of communication that helps them connect beyond their
indigenous world.  Anything that helps groups to move into the
21st century with a forward thinking mindset.

What keeps community groups from exploiting these resources to
the fullest?  Primarily slow connections.

You say "community groups currently need less bandwidth than the
traditional I-Net participants."  Again, I don't know if this is
true.  For example, a learning center where kids are creating
interactive multi-media products that need to either be
transmitted via Internet or produced on the web, need tremendous
band-width; whereas, a larger institution who uses the Internet
primarily for e-mail may not need as much bandwidth.  I just
don't think you have fairly portrayed the issue here.  It's not
size of organization but the way in which the Internet is being
used.  I think you could do a better job at making this case by
not relying on size but providing characteristics or criteria-is
it size?  Is it number of users?  Is it content being
transmitted?  Is it ability to sustain the costs and management
of a I-net drop?  Isn't it possible that a community organization
could possibly be one of those drops?  I know that's not what we
are proposing and I think that's fine but I fear you are lumping
community organizations into a homogenous pot.  In fact, the I-
Net drops will go to schools, museums, etc. because they have
staff, depts., and funds to sustain them as well as an extensive
need now.  So who agrees to be an I-Net drop has additional
criteria beyond how they use the Internet - they agree to be the
backbone and have the institutional resources to provide this
service.  Somehow I don't think you clearly define this and as a
result, you give the impression that community groups are somehow
inferior partners who basically are doing good things but need
charity.  I know that's an exaggeration but that's how lots of
folk will read this.

I'd rather see the proposal, place the institutional and
community organizations in full partnership on the I-Net.  You
can do this if you re-word and re-focus the proposal.

Community Groups as Producers of Internet Content

Community groups are actively pursuing production of content.
Some are working on community histories, others are working to
map their own neighborhood resources, and still others tell
stories of what they are doing so people will know how to connect
to their services and programs.  Advertising as well as providing
content which can benefit others is becoming a major activity of
community groups.  For community learning centers, youth are
creating interactive multi-media products that we cannot place on
the web due to low bandwidth.  Providing high bandwidth to
learning centers opens the door for young people to work with
advanced technologies connecting them to the world of tomorrow
rather than the world of today or yesterday.

In fact, the lack of high speed/increased bandwidth keeps many
community groups from becoming producers of content.  With slow
connections and the inability to handle graphical and interactive
material, many groups do not move forward nor push their
constituents to become Internet content producers.

Community Groups as Communication Users
Staff of community groups find Internet e-mail critical to their
success.  With Internet communications, they are able to connect
with others who can help them, answer questions and give them
guidance on how to use and support the technology in their
centers.   At least for organizational staff, email is essential.

Students get free email through ISPs and access their email in
public libraries and community organizations.  Without these
public and local access points, the Internet would be only
another set of encyclopedias for students.  With the public and
local access points, the Internet becomes a way to interact with
others that keeps students engaged in learning and thinking about
their futures.

Senior Citizens are communicating with family members throughout
the world.  This is one of the first uses of the Internet that
Senior Citizens find useful.

Community Groups as Point of Entry to Home Communications

Individuals learn about the Internet and computing through these
community organizations.  As a result, many individuals find a
way to procure technology for their homes.  Financial priorities
change when individuals experience the power of having access to
the Internet.  Thus, community organizations provide a portal for
increased computing/Internet connectivity throughout the region.
This is a major point for TCI.  Without this stepping stone, many
individuals would never subscribe to TCI internet services at
home.

By the same token, I'm wondering if you should make the point:
Community Groups and these I-Net Institutions will not place
themselves in direct competition with TCI by providing Internet
access to individuals.  I don't know what this does to HHCAN but
I can see this as a problem and they may need some assurances on
this.  This could be an agreement by CBOs who are selected for
the free access.  Maybe TCI could offer free installation to
individuals who subscribe and mention they were
helped/recommended by an I-Net member or connected community
organization.  Just a thought!  It would be kind of neat though
wouldn't it?  If I, as an home user, called TCI and said I'm a
constituent of Hazelwood Senior Center and want to subscribe at
home, they could get the individual bootstrap discount-free
installation and 6 months reduced monthly charge???  Hmmmm.

CAUTION:

I would urge you to be careful in characterizing the needs of
community groups.  I encourage you to use "many community groups"
rather than to suggest that all community groups need less
bandwidth.   I think you are wrong in your characterization of
community groups in this regard.

It is more accurate to say that typically community groups go
through a developmental process.  As they begin to explore
computing and Internet uses in their program and organization,
their needs change.  They change actually more rapidly than their
ability to respond in terms of being able to provide greater
bandwidth to accommodate program development.

Providing cable modems will providing the bootstrap needed.  For
many organizations, a cable modem will be adequate for a long
time, perhaps forever.  For organizations who are actively
engaged in developing content, especially those who are working
with youth, their need for greater bandwidth will increase
exponentially, in direct relationship to the staff's ability to
make greater use of the interactive media production
capabilities.

"Community groups typically use regular phone lines and one or
more dial-up....for bandwidth needs."
So, I would urge you NOT to lump all community groups into one
characterization but rather characterize them as organizations
who are metamorphosizing themselves in the age of technology.  In
light of this, I think you can make a stronger case for why cable
modems and access to I-Net drops are essential to community
organizations.  Your proposal sounds more like charity than
advocacy.  I know that's a strong criticism but that's how I read
it.  I think you can change it to reflect better and more
accurately on the role and stages of community organizations.

What is happening right now is that community groups are trying
to get faster internet connections and are pursuing ISDN, DSL,
etc.  You need to characterize this development rather than
characterize them as static organizations who are happy with one
or more dial-up and slower connections.  This is just wrong!
Nearly every community organization either has or is working with
some sort of LAN.  Even where there is one dial-up connection, a
proxy server is often in place to provide multiple computer
access.  This is a survival mechanism, not a desired strategy.  I
don't think you are making the case adequately about where
community organizations are right now with technology!

--------------------

CONFUSION

1.  I am totally confused by the costs discussion. Are you
saying: to acommodate this proposal, TCI commits to an investment
of $60,000 for the cable modems?
Modem/Installation: 100 * 300 for modems + 100 *300 for
installation = $60k.

2.  I don't understand recurring costs.  Who are the "customers"
who would ask questions?  Is this staff from the community
organizations?   I'm totally confused by "The company will forego
the monthly revenues of $40/month.  This is not clear.  Are you
saying that if a community group gets one of the cable modems
which TCI will donate and install for free, that neither will the
community organization pay for monthly service?  So TCI is
donating the line free of charge as well?  Then the community
group only has to pay for ISP services?  Is that what you are
saying?   I don't get the $4,000 per month charge.  Where does
this come from?  This paragraph and the previous needs
clarification.  Also, are you saying that this number represents
lost revenue for TCI?  I just don't get the numbers nor the point
of them.

If so, for how long?  While this can help a community group get
bootstrapped it is not a sustainable strategy.  I may totally
misunderstand what you are saying here.  But if I do understand
it, then it seems to me that we need to flesh this out a bit more
to show we know what we are doing.  For example:

- totally free connectivity can go a long way to help bootstrap
a community organization but many community organizations can
actually pay for the line, but may need a discount.
- just as we have some sort of e-rate for libraries and schools,
I would like to suggest that TCI offer the non-profit community
discounted services for cable connection.
This way community groups can submit proposals for free
connection or if they can afford it, apply for the TCI non-profit
price. Alternatively, the group that manages the free service for
community groups could also qualify and coordinate discounted
service for non-profits who can afford reasonable costs.

Regarding the "panel of community representatives" and
"competitive process."  I think you can say that community
organizations are beginning to organize around their
technological issues.  To implement and manage the free and
discounted cable access, a group will form representative of
community technology centers who will help develop selection
criteria, fair and equitable processes and procedures.  Whether
this is a separate group or a group that works in conjunction
with whoever manages the I-Net will be determined.   I think the
Regional CTCNet can be helpful here-of course it's just beginning
to form.  Still, you can say we have a Pittsburgh Regional CTCNet
who are beginning to meet and organize around cbo technology
needs & issues.  Rather than "competitive process" why not use,
RFP process.  We need to get community groups to cooperate, not
compete.  It is that competition mentality that keeps them from
actually helping each other for mutual and respective gains.

I just don't think the criteria you mention is adequate.  For
example: rather than "reach" which is nebulous, the criteria
might better be specified as impact on organizational's
sustainability, role/function in the community and to their
constituents. In fact, access to the Internet can have a direct
effect on sustainability, so if you determine selection by
current sustainability, you are doing a disservice to those for
whom access increases sustainability.  What we know is that an
organization has to have staff who is responsible for and
actively engaged in using, supporting and managing technology.
Maybe what you mean is an organization's ability to pay for
services beyond the free period.  At any rate, I don't know what
is needed for this proposal in terms of selection criteria. If
this will be used as the criteria, then we need to work on this
more!



The point about stimulating home purchases/subscriptions needs to
be made earlier and reiterated later.  This is factual and an
important point that most people don't know.

BTW, it seems to me the free cable modems should be leased by
community organizations.  They should put some money up, even if
it is a small amount.  Once they move onto different
connectivity, the modem should be returned to the pool and used
to help another community organization.  Again, this is the type
of procedure/policy the community management group can work out.
But I don't think they should be "given" to community
organizations and become their property.

In light of this, I wonder if you might want to change the basic
tenet of the proposal.  Rather than "provide 100 community
groups" with cable modems and service, provide the capability for
100 groups to access this in order to bootstrap them during their
developmental phases.  I think the current language of the
proposal makes it sound like a giveaway program, charity.  I
really think it should be positioned within a strategy that
corresponds to the realities of community groups - they are in
motion, developing and expanding their use of technology-but need
that bootstrap in order to do that development.



2. Extendable I-Net

You mention in one bullet point that you want to require TCI to
make their 4 hubs accessible to community groups for connection.
[Is "collocation" a word?  Is it suppose to be co-location? ]
Yet, later you mention only the 140 public sites, you fail to
include the 4 TCI hubs in this number.  You may want to reiterate
this here.

"This means that reasonable charges would be assessed to
community groups to cover the ongoing costs..."  What ongoing
costs?  The proposal does not define those.  Whether you know the
amounts or not, it should specify or delineate the nature of
those ongoing costs.



In terms of easy reading and understanding, I suggestion you have
a separate section that deals with implementing and managing the
community connections and the I-Net stuff.  In this section you
could propose that a part of the I-Net management entity include
a community arm that establishes and manages the criteria,
procedures and policies by which community groups are selected
for cable modems and connection to the I-Net.  This same group
could help define the expectations and requirements for I-Net
institutions for providing access to community groups.  We are
basically talking about an new public access entity.  I think you
can delineate these functions and the tasks of these functions
and leave open the decision about whether a current group will do
this or whether a new entity needs to be decided.  However, we
need to determine HOW that decision will be made.  If the Working
Group is given the authority to make this decision, then
community groups need to be better represented.  I am working to
organize regular gatherings for the Regional CTCNet, it is
possible that this group could provide the input and help make
these decisions, providing liaison or staff to the I-Net
management group.


Nitpicks:

I suggest you always refer to the Working Group as the Working
Group rather than the Group.  Be consistent so there is no room
for confusion as to whom you are referring to.

Under Background on the Working Group

1st para: verb tense is wrong- should be "have" rather than "has"
I believe.

4th para: you may want to consider putting "hired by the
City...with TCI" in parenthesis.

Under Community uses beyond those of traditional I-Nets

3rd para: first sentence is awkward, sort of reads that I-Nets
replace at higher prices.
4th para: last sentence: include schools with libraries &
museums.

Under (1)Free cable modems and services...

2nd bullet point: "Community groups would have the right..."  I
suggest that you specify the other side of this "right" which is
not stated anywhere in the proposal, that: "I-Net institutions
have the responsibility to provide access to community groups
following whatever procedure and policy is developed to manage
such access.  This responsibility is part of the
agreement/contract into which an I-Net institutions enters when
becoming an I-Net backbone."  ALSO, I find the term I-Net
participant confusing.  Aren't community groups who gain access
via an I-Net institution an I-Net participant?  You might want to
differentiate the backbone I-Net institutions from others or find
a term that really specifies this role/function.

[inet-rev.rtf]